Two major pronouncements on road safety by the Victorian Government in two days. Both of them are sort of motherhood promises for conservative middle Victorian voters - hammering drunk drivers and getting rid of tailgating. Hmm.....?

A government desperate to get some media image and bonus points with flagging polls, methinks.

This being the key to the story:

However, Mr Mulder had no word on when the tougher laws would be introduced or how they would be policed. Nor was there any funding for the new legislation or technology, he said.

So he knows of some rash of bicycle tailgating injuries that are clogging up our hospital resources? Or have there been a lot of cyclist tailgating deaths that the media has hidden from us (damned media - always has a conspiracy running )?

il padrone wrote:Two major pronouncements on road safety by the Victorian Government in two days. ..

How can they be allowed to do that trick without wearing a helmet? Sure it's a bit of fun but it sets a bad example, is inconsiderate, and is dangerous to others in the vicinity. Sorry, but they should be made an example of before others emulate this behaviour in a copycat fashion.

Don't jump the gun Mulger. I'll believe this "new technology" when I see it

A quick Google search drew a blank, except for devices to prevent entry into secure areas by tailgating ie. to get through a secure entry; and other more speculative efforts to monitor and divert traffic flows and speeds. Nothing that looks anything like monitoring, identifying and enforcing.

il padrone wrote:Don't jump the gun Mulger. I'll believe this "new technology" when I see it

A quick Google search drew a blank, except for devices to prevent entry into secure areas by tailgating ie. to get through a secure entry; and other more speculative efforts to monitor and divert traffic flows and speeds. Nothing that looks anything like monitoring, identifying and enforcing.

The linked article wrote:Number two; we're going to bring in legislation to support it; number three, we're going to be looking at the technology that's currently being used overseas for successful prosecutions to bring that technology to Victoria.

HERE you go... I vaguely recall reading about a fixed freeway version based on overhead cameras and spaced cateye reflectors mid lane.

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

1. Cyclists tailgating one another, while commonplace, is not renowned for severe injuries or frequent deaths on the roads.

2. There is no specific law outlawing a cyclist tailgating another cyclist. Only to prevent tailgating a car....

In WA the Traffic Code is quite clear; there are no exemptions for cyclists following other cyclists.

109. Keeping a safe distance behind vehiclesExcept when overtaking and passing, the driver of any vehicleshall, when following another vehicle, keep such distancebehind it as will enable the driver to stop the vehicle in anemergency with safety, and without running into the vehicle infront of him or her.Points: 1 Modified penalty: 2 PU

1. Cyclists tailgating one another, while commonplace, is not renowned for severe injuries or frequent deaths on the roads.

2. There is no specific law outlawing a cyclist tailgating another cyclist. Only to prevent tailgating a car....

In WA the Traffic Code is quite clear; there are no exemptions for cyclists following other cyclists.

109. Keeping a safe distance behind vehiclesExcept when overtaking and passing, the driver of any vehicleshall, when following another vehicle, keep such distancebehind it as will enable the driver to stop the vehicle in anemergency with safety, and without running into the vehicle infront of him or her.Points: 1 Modified penalty: 2 PU

Yes, that is the safe distance rule applies for all. But not what the alleged rule change was all about.

Incidentally any riders in a peleton would be able to argue that they were riding in a co-operative style where they did not brake suddenly or unnecessarily, and any braking actions were signalled and warned verbally through the group. Hence all group-members should be able to stop safely (as all peletons do). Ring-ins of course are another thing.

There is a tailgating rule that specifically outlaws a cyclist from riding closer than 2m from the rear of a motor vehicle for more than 200m (Rule 255). This provides a much clearer requirement for a set distance. No such rule applies for motor vehicles driving very close (as there is also no such requirement for cyclists following another cyclist), and it is this type of rule that I believe the state government is talking about trying to introduce. The mechanics of spelling it out in legislation will prove too complex however as a say, 10m space will be fine at 40kmh, but dangerously close at 100kmh. And less than 5m would be quite safe for most cyclists at almost any speed, so they would have to exempt cyclists

il padrone wrote:Incidentally any riders in a peleton would be able to argue that they were riding in a co-operative style where they did not brake suddenly or unnecessarily, and any braking actions were signalled and warned verbally through the group. Hence all group-members should be able to stop safely (as all peletons do). Ring-ins of course are another thing.

Just my uneducated non-lawyer's view of the rules.

Semi-trailer drivers sometimes drive in tandem with very little clearance so the rear truck saves fuel. It's illegal but it sometimes happens. I don't like their chances if they tried to argue

il padrone wrote: that they were [driving] in a co-operative style where they did not brake suddenly or unnecessarily, and any braking actions were signalled and warned verbally [by radio or hands-free phone] through the group. Hence all group-members should be able to stop safely (as all [bicycle] peletons do)

I then read on and found il padrone's signature line

il padrone wrote:"Remember, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated like drivers of vehicles"

Nobody younger than <del>27</del> 28 has experienced a month cooler than the 20th century average.

ausrandoman wrote:I then read on and found il padrone's signature line

il padrone wrote:"Remember, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated like drivers of vehicles"

Yep, certainly agree with that. There are a limited number of specific rules for cyclists that are somewhat different - does not change the basic principle however.

The rule on safe distance is not one of these however. The key thing about it is:

keep such distance behind it as will enable the driver to stop the vehicle in an emergency with safety, and without running into the vehicle in front of him or her.

Cyclists riding in a peleton should certainly always do this. If you are not confident that you cannot stop safely (with your cycling mates) then you should not be there. Equally lead riders in a peleton should always indicate hazards and call when stopping or slowing. Pretty basic really.

Semi-trailers driving in a close convoy should also be doing the same. I kinda doubt a 'blind' truckie (close behind another) carrying 30 tonnes at 110kmh would go anywhere near being able to stop in time when the brakelights go red in front. But I'm no truckie.

Today it's P-platers banned from using hands-free mobile phones.Yesterday the "crack-down" on tailgating driversMonday was the alcohol interlock devices for anyone over 0.05

Do I smell an election in the wings, a government trying desperately to hide other bad news, or just trying to build some cred for actually doing something??? Hmm....

Sounds like another recent Labor state ex-government I seem to recall. They must have all gone to the same School of Politics when they did their degrees.

Eventually the population will start laughing at the joke, and they'll be annihilated at the polls. Which will be a setback for our democracy - we need a reasonably strong opposition to avoid the excesses of excessive power.

Although taking the money from TAC is a REALLY bad idea. Isn't that money used to compensate accident VICTIMS? From what I've heard the TAC is already stingy enough with handing out to legitimate road accident victims when these people should be fully compensated for their medical expenses etc. Especially if it wasn't their fault they were injured.

And a $1 billion loss last year? Probably caused by the government ripping out funds through their government 'dividends' fraud like they did with Melbourne Water Corp and the Victorian WorkSafe Authority etc.

Mulger bill wrote:Hmmm, all of a sudden new technology exists to cheaply and easily detect, record and invoice vehicle spacing and all of a sudden, tailgating becomes a new No1 road menace requiring "Tough New Laws"TM.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.